Legal Opinion
Rosenberg Suit & Coat Co. v. General Accident Fire & Life Assur. Corp.
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided November 16, 1920PublishedCited by 5 opinions
From Multnomah: Calvin U. Gantenbein, Judge. Department 1. This is a suit to reform a policy of insurance against loss by burglary thereunder. There was a decree for the plaintiff and defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtBenson, J.
There is but one question presented upon this appeal, and that is raised by defendant’s contention that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of suit.
The portion of the complaint whose sufficiency is challenged reads thus:
“That on the third day of October, 1918, plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract of insurance whereby defendant contracted and agreed for a premium to indemnify the plaintiff against all loss by burglary of merchandise plaintiff may have at No. 144 — 146 Third Street, Portland, Oregon. That it was contracted and agreed that said contract…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hyland v. HylandOregon Supreme Court · 1890
- Osborn v. KetchumOregon Supreme Court · 1894
3Cited by5 opinions
- Iwanicki v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1922
- Wolfgang v. Henry Thiele Catering Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1929
- Lytle v. HulenOregon Supreme Court · 1928
- Southeast Portland Lumber Co. v. HeacockOregon Supreme Court · 1929
- Lange v. AllenOregon Supreme Court · 1926